Michael Ballaris v. Wacker Siltronic Corporation, a Foreign Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that clothes changing that is merely a convenience to employees is not compensable but finding that clothes changing is compensable where uniforms were required to limit contamination of employer’s product
• finding that questions related to an employees’ duties is a question of fact and the 10 application of the FLSA to those duties is a question of law
• stating that “it would undermine the purpose of the FLSA if an employer could use agreed-upon compensation for non-work time (or work time) as a credit so as to avoid paying compensation required by the FLSA.”
• donning and doffing uniforms held compensable because the uniforms were necessary to limit contamination and to ensure the quality of the product
• excluding payments for the paid lunch periods from calculation of the regular rate
• “One of the principal purposes of the FLSA is to ensure that employees are provided appropriate compensation for all hours worked.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).